[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by dipayankar It is starting to hit me... coupled with the fact that there are three dimensions.. is the three theory true???

According to me: not as an absolute theory.

And I posed the question before: do you agree or not that the three dimensions are only real when starting with the whole set of dimensions, but it is not real when starting with the individual dimensions? Because it is impossible to find anything with just a single dimension — it doesn't exist.

One can argue that anything of 2 dimensions doesn't exist either (because anything has width, length and thickness), but the artificial world of picture, painting, movie, etcetera is delivered in 2D. The movie screen has a thickness, but the movie itself is not based on thickness. The person or car or whatever shown in the picture is in reality not there (so, 2D exists as an artificial delivery). Something with one dimension, however, does not even exist in the artificial domain.

Since 3 dimensions are not constructed on actual separate dimensions, I proposed to change the image of 3 dimensional directions into 2 dimensional fields. The result is the same, but since 2D can exist (albeit only in an artificial format), the combination of two fields of 2D delivers our dimensional reality in an actual manner. Naturally, 2 X 2D is not 4D, because there is overlap occurring in the outcome. Just like we only need two eyes to see depth, we only need two 2D fields to get the overall picture.

[rybot]

Originally Posted by dipayankar It is starting to hit me... coupled with the fact that there are three dimensions.. is the three theory true???

I dunno Dipya. Another three which I consider significant, is the ectoderm, endoderm and mesoderm.

These occur in the gastrulation phases of human embryonic celluar evolution/process.

Im sorry I don't have a info at at hand but each of these catagories associate with differrent aspcect of complex animal parts:

skin, organs, skeletal, nervous etc....

http://biology.kenyon.edu/courses/bi...hapter_14.html

.....{Gastrulation} "it is the most important time in your life"...

http://faculty.clintoncc.suny.edu/fa...ues.htm#Tissue

There is no stable structrual integrity of universe, without triangulation.


Rybo

[dipayankar]

So in effect the dimensions are just virtual. But how can we feel something which is virtual for e.g. I can feel the three dimensions of this keyboard...

Originally Posted by Fredrick According to me: not as an absolute theory. And I posed the question before: do you agree or not that the three dimensions are only real when starting with the whole set of dimensions, but it is not real when starting with the individual dimensions? Because it is impossible to find anything with just a single dimension — it doesn't exist. One can argue that anything of 2 dimensions doesn't exist either (because anything has width, length and thickness), but the artificial world of picture, painting, movie, etcetera is delivered in 2D. The movie screen has a thickness, but the movie itself is not based on thickness. The person or car or whatever shown in the picture is in reality not there (so, 2D exists as an artificial delivery). Something with one dimension, however, does not even exist in the artificial domain. Since 3 dimensions are not constructed on actual separate dimensions, I proposed to change the image of 3 dimensional directions into 2 dimensional fields. The result is the same, but since 2D can exist (albeit only in an artificial format), the combination of two fields of 2D delivers our dimensional reality in an actual manner. Naturally, 2 X 2D is not 4D, because there is overlap occurring in the outcome. Just like we only need two eyes to see depth, we only need two 2D fields to get the overall picture.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by dipayankar So in effect the dimensions are just virtual. But how can we feel something which is virtual for e.g. I can feel the three dimensions of this keyboard...

Dipayankar, it took me some time to get back to this (new job).

The best way for me to explain the concept is by stating first that there are two concepts that are vying for our attention at the same time. The first one is the regular 3D we have all learned and all understand. It works, and we can communicate perfectly well with each other. As such, the 3D concept does not need improvement.

The second concept does not undermine the functioning of the 3D reality, it only places the question mark at what the precise building stones of 3D are. There are 3 building stones, but only when we start out with the complete picture. Each building stone by itself cannot exist.

What can exist are two building stones together, though they are not reality, but artificial additions to our reality, such as a drawing on a piece of paper, a movie on a screen, a picture in an album. The art exists, is real, and has 3D properties in as far as the medium is concerned, but can be exposed as 'fake' because they are flat. For instance, a person in a picture cannot be measured with a real measuring tool (though through deduction one can make a professional guess).

So, the 3D is not connected to the keyboard, the 3D is connected to the common agreement that this is the way we explain the dimensional environment. You and I have learned to see, explain and describe our environment this way.

2D+ is nothing but the same environment, but it describes our environment differently. The dimensions are not directions, but fields. A field contains two directions (for instance, up-down and left-right, but not front-back). When adding another dimension (a field), both dimensions enforce some parts of each other, not all parts.

I guess it is best to immediately use the example of our eyes here. If we close one eye, we do not move our head, and look out of the other eye, then the image we are getting is basically flat. It is possible to notice up-down and left-right, but front-back is not an automatic part of it. If you were born with an immovable head, one eye, and nobody and nothing to disturb the image in front of you, there would be no way for you to have any certainty about the depths in front of you. By opening up a second eye (or by either yourself moving or something else moving, allowing your single eye to get more than one perspective) a depth becomes obtainable. The second eye establishes a second view, adding a slightly different perspective, and though the difference is truly minimal, we can see now what is up front or placed in the back.

Even when nothing changed in the outside world, except your opening up a second eye, then your perspective changed — not the outside world. That is the essence of my delivery: we can always view the same information differently, because we are bound to the specific result. The same is true with 3D and 2D+. They cover the exact same territory, but they give different answers to what is real. Foremost, they belong to the area of perspectives, not to the area of the outside world, even when it is the outside world on which both concepts find their starting point. So, your keyboard is still the same keyboard, but you can think about it as existing in 3D or in 2D+.

I know this is almost an ethereal difference, almost negligible, almost futile, almost not worth anyone's attention, yet it exposes the fact that the observer contains the concept, while the viewed environment is subjected to the concept, formulated not by itself, but by the observer.

[rybot]

Originally Posted by rybot I dunno Dipya. Another three which I consider significant, is the ectoderm, endoderm and mesoderm. There is no stable structrual integrity of universe, without triangulation. Rybo

Also Dipya, there is:

1) all of the universe outside the system/structure

2) all of the universe insided the system/structure

3) the little bit of system/structure that seperates tho two, if only temporarily , in some cases e.g. a 'meson' partice --boson/two quarks-- has very short time of existence ergo very unstable.

Also consider that we have left and right hemi-spheres with the a corpus callosum that connects those two.

We have the bilateral --ergo left and right-- set of 31 spinal nerves that have the spinal chord inbtween that connect the left and right.

Rybo

[dipayankar]

You are right Fredrick, I completely forgot this thread. Thanks for restarting it.

Your explaination works exceedingly well in a 3D scenario. However it now seems that we might be moving our understanding to a 10 or 11 dimension Universe. How do we then take the complexities of the additional dimensions? Somehow I feel dimensions are virtual that got created by the big bang to allow the expansion of space-time..

Originally Posted by Fredrick Dipayankar, it took me some time to get back to this (new job). The best way for me to explain the concept is by stating first that there are two concepts that are vying for our attention at the same time. The first one is the regular 3D we have all learned and all understand. It works, and we can communicate perfectly well with each other. As such, the 3D concept does not need improvement. The second concept does not undermine the functioning of the 3D reality, it only places the question mark at what the precise building stones of 3D are. There are 3 building stones, but only when we start out with the complete picture. Each building stone by itself cannot exist. What can exist are two building stones together, though they are not reality, but artificial additions to our reality, such as a drawing on a piece of paper, a movie on a screen, a picture in an album. The art exists, is real, and has 3D properties in as far as the medium is concerned, but can be exposed as 'fake' because they are flat. For instance, a person in a picture cannot be measured with a real measuring tool (though through deduction one can make a professional guess). So, the 3D is not connected to the keyboard, the 3D is connected to the common agreement that this is the way we explain the dimensional environment. You and I have learned to see, explain and describe our environment this way. 2D+ is nothing but the same environment, but it describes our environment differently. The dimensions are not directions, but fields. A field contains two directions (for instance, up-down and left-right, but not front-back). When adding another dimension (a field), both dimensions enforce some parts of each other, not all parts. I guess it is best to immediately use the example of our eyes here. If we close one eye, we do not move our head, and look out of the other eye, then the image we are getting is basically flat. It is possible to notice up-down and left-right, but front-back is not an automatic part of it. If you were born with an immovable head, one eye, and nobody and nothing to disturb the image in front of you, there would be no way for you to have any certainty about the depths in front of you. By opening up a second eye (or by either yourself moving or something else moving, allowing your single eye to get more than one perspective) a depth becomes obtainable. The second eye establishes a second view, adding a slightly different perspective, and though the difference is truly minimal, we can see now what is up front or placed in the back. Even when nothing changed in the outside world, except your opening up a second eye, then your perspective changed — not the outside world. That is the essence of my delivery: we can always view the same information differently, because we are bound to the specific result. The same is true with 3D and 2D+. They cover the exact same territory, but they give different answers to what is real. Foremost, they belong to the area of perspectives, not to the area of the outside world, even when it is the outside world on which both concepts find their starting point. So, your keyboard is still the same keyboard, but you can think about it as existing in 3D or in 2D+. I know this is almost an ethereal difference, almost negligible, almost futile, almost not worth anyone's attention, yet it exposes the fact that the observer contains the concept, while the viewed environment is subjected to the concept, formulated not by itself, but by the observer.

[dipayankar]

So that makes it kind of a two and a half theory doesnt it??

Originally Posted by rybot Also Dipya, there is: 1) all of the universe outside the system/structure 2) all of the universe insided the system/structure 3) the little bit of system/structure that seperates tho two, if only temporarily , in some cases e.g. a 'meson' partice --boson/two quarks-- has very short time of existence ergo very unstable. Also consider that we have left and right hemi-spheres with the a corpus callosum that connects those two. We have the bilateral --ergo left and right-- set of 31 spinal nerves that have the spinal chord inbtween that connect the left and right. Rybo

[rybot]

Originally Posted by dipayankar So that makes it kind of a two and a half theory doesnt it??

2.5?

If I understand you correctly Dipya, then that may very well be true, in *some* circumstances/situations.

We have;

1) pregnant female as a whole organism

2) female as whole organism

3) male as whole organism.

There is an early period of the embryonic cell where those organs to be --clitoris or penis-- have not become activated ergo we have what may appear to be an inbetween sex.

There is more to this story if your interested but it is too complcated for most to follow.

Rybo

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by dipayankar You are right Fredrick, I completely forgot this thread. Thanks for restarting it. Your explanation works exceedingly well in a 3D scenario. However it now seems that we might be moving our understanding to a 10 or 11 dimension Universe. How do we then take the complexities of the additional dimensions? Somehow I feel dimensions are virtual that got created by the big bang to allow the expansion of space-time..

My pleasure waking you up...

The thing is that 3D and 2D+ relate to the same delivery of our reality. The ten or eleven dimensions as mentioned in M-theory require some brain power towards the less realistic world. Basically, what they are doing is showing that if you move in one specific direction that from that point on an additional movement into a different direction is a/ possible, b/ distinct, and c/ if you don't pay attention you can count directions more than once.

What their delivery comes down to is extremely similar to taking a walk through the mountains from point A to point B and then coming to the following conclusions (and I am using left-right, up-down, and front-back to make the path sounds as dimensional as possible):
We moved close the entire trip to the left, and after a while within the trip we walked both to the front and up, but later we move to the back and up, while the latter part we continuously moved down, first going front, then actually walking to the right, and then going back until we reached point B. The entire trip was one-directional (left), but we hit front, back, up and down several times, and one time we actually followed the road that took us a little bit to the right as well.

Confusion about counting dimensions makes certain people count them more than once. 2D+ takes a daring step in the opposite direction. Instead of stating there are more than 3 dimensions (or 4 if you count time as one), this theory states there are only 2 (but they are fields of directions, not singular directions because they don't exist as such).

[dipayankar]

Hey Fredrick... can you please elaborate between singular directions and field of directions. Seems interesting.

Originally Posted by Fredrick My pleasure waking you up... The thing is that 3D and 2D+ relate to the same delivery of our reality. The ten or eleven dimensions as mentioned in M-theory require some brain power towards the less realistic world. Basically, what they are doing is showing that if you move in one specific direction that from that point on an additional movement into a different direction is a/ possible, b/ distinct, and c/ if you don't pay attention you can count directions more than once. What their delivery comes down to is extremely similar to taking a walk through the mountains from point A to point B and then coming to the following conclusions (and I am using left-right, up-down, and front-back to make the path sounds as dimensional as possible): We moved close the entire trip to the left, and after a while within the trip we walked both to the front and up, but later we move to the back and up, while the latter part we continuously moved down, first going front, then actually walking to the right, and then going back until we reached point B. The entire trip was one-directional (left), but we hit front, back, up and down several times, and one time we actually followed the road that took us a little bit to the right as well. Confusion about counting dimensions makes certain people count them more than once. 2D+ takes a daring step in the opposite direction. Instead of stating there are more than 3 dimensions (or 4 if you count time as one), this theory states there are only 2 (but they are fields of directions, not singular directions because they don't exist as such).